this post was submitted on 04 Oct 2024
1087 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

58480 readers
3960 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Clearly, Google is serious about trying to oust ad blockers from its browser, or at least those extensions with fuller (V2) levels of functionality. One of the crucial twists with V3 is that it prevents the use of remotely hosted code – as a security measure – but this also means ad blockers can’t update their filter lists without going through Google’s review process. What does that mean? Way slower updates for said filters, which hampers the ability of the ad-blocking extension to keep up with the necessary changes to stay effective.

(This isn’t just about browsers, either, as the war on advert dodgers extends to YouTube, too, as we’ve seen in recent months).

At any rate, Google is playing with fire here somewhat – or Firefox, perhaps we should say – as this may be the shove some folks need to get them considering another of the best web browsers out there aside from Chrome. Mozilla, the maker of Firefox, has vowed to maintain support for V2 extensions, while introducing support for V3 alongside to give folks a choice (now there’s a radical idea).

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sandbox@lemmy.world 103 points 15 hours ago (23 children)

We’re going to have a serious problem on our hands soon with compatibility. I’m a software dev and I’m already seeing a few issues here and there where Chrome is being treated as the default expected browser and features don’t work on Firefox.

Firefox doesn’t support a fair few Chrome features because of security and privacy reasons, such as WebHID, WebUSB, etc.

Devs, please stop using those features. I know it’s tempting, but they’re basically bribes to encourage you to sell out to Google. Don’t do it.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 11 points 14 hours ago (5 children)

Teams calls for example :( I have chromium on my Debian only for teams.

[–] Frays6142@lemmy.world 8 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

Teams works in Firefox, I sadly have to use it almost every day interacting with clients who use teams for comms.

[–] frozen@lemmy.frozeninferno.xyz 2 points 4 hours ago

One of my company's customers is a DoD contractor that uses the government version of Teams, which does require Chromium, unfortunately. Or at least, I haven't found a way to make it work on Firefox yet.

[–] Randelung@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

idk what to tell you, calls have no sound.

I'll try again, though.

[–] coolfission@lemm.ee 1 points 11 hours ago* (last edited 11 hours ago)

But you can't turn on camera with Teams on Firefox iirc

[–] Frays6142@lemmy.world 0 points 8 hours ago

I've not had either of those issues on my laptop, using teams through Firefox. I wonder if there is something else going on there.

load more comments (17 replies)